they will as long as the NHL is willing to put in place a revenue sharing system that works and that is acceptable to the top 4-5 teams that will fund it.
- Symba007

I can't understand why teams would not want to fund the payroll of their competitors so that, you know, they can use that money to bid against them for free agents and stuff.

Agreed 100%.

Players will not win this, because even if the NHL to capitulate to the NHLPA's position, that will only occur after lots of games lost (and likely the season). Too much money will have been lost on the players side - well beyond the adjustment the NHL is asking for to get to 50/50 split.
- JDJ

It is funny how Fehr's brainwashing will start to wear off as the players start losing actual money.

He might want to ask Goodenow about how that works.

It is funny how Fehr's brainwashing will start to wear off as the players start losing actual money.

He might want to ask Goodenow about how that works.
- Aetherial

What is the time frame for this brainwashing to start wearing off? When do you expect this to start happening?

Agreed 100%.

Players will not win this, because even if the NHL to capitulate to the NHLPA's position, that will only occur after lots of games lost (and likely the season). Too much money will have been lost on the players side - well beyond the adjustment the NHL is asking for to get to 50/50 split.

Given how few contracts go beyond 2 years remaining currently, the NHLPA is holding out for a very small minority of players rather than trying to maximize the NHL's "Make Whole" proposal for the next 2 years that could satisfy the majority of the membership.

The NHLPA is too focused on the star players, who will get more than enough money one way or another (current contract, next contract, advertising deals, etc...), rather than the regular player who is more than likely going to get screwed over in this deal (especially with games lost).

The NHL knows they will win in the end, and they are playing like they know they will win. I suspect they will never move far off the current offer and can just see it getting worse.
- JDJ

That's simply untrue. The NHLPA is looking out for every player. If they were just looking out for the star players who are making 6,7,8-10 million a year, they would just take the 7% cut and be done with it. And we'd be playing Hockey now.

What is your definition of the NHL winning?

I can't understand why teams would not want to fund the payroll of their competitors so that, you know, they can use that money to bid against them for free agents and stuff.
- Aetherial

exactly...tough sell for the most profitable teams in the league (TO, MTL and NYR)

You know that things are looking real shisty when even Eklund's Optimism meter drops to "could go either way" level.

What is the time frame for this brainwashing to start wearing off? When do you expect this to start happening?
- MJL

You know, it depends really.

I would have to go back to the timelines of 2004, which I can't be bothered to do.

I am guessing it will be right around when they start waking up and thinking to themselves...

"Self, why am I throwing away money which I will never recover even if we get everything we wanted in our last offer. How did I manage to get myself in this position. WTF? This makes no sense."

The next thought is, "Whose stupid idea is/was this?"

You know, it depends really.

I would have to go back to the timelines of 2004, which I can't be bothered to do.

I am guessing it will be right around when they start waking up and thinking to themselves...

"Self, why am I throwing away money which I will never recover even if we get everything we wanted in our last offer. How did I manage to get myself in this position. WTF? This makes no sense."

The next thought is, "Whose stupid idea is/was this?"
- Aetherial

So more imaginary statements and fantasy?

As if the players are going to wake up and suddenly realize they're going to lose money due to the lockout. Like I said, why didn't they just settle before October then? If they were going to fold when they start losing money?

You know that things are looking real shisty when even Eklund's Optimism meter drops to "could go either way" level.
- Aliaksandrhn

The meter is low due to the fact this site was crashing all day.

That's simply untrue. The NHLPA is looking out for every player. If they were just looking out for the star players who are making 6,7,8-10 million a year, they would just take the 7% cut and be done with it. And we'd be playing Hockey now.

What is your definition of the NHL winning?
- MJL

The lower teir players stand to lose the most. They are the most likely to have the shorter careers so each game lost is relatively more of their total NHL earnings. The difference in real dollars between the league and PA position is also less for them.

It is the relatively wealthy ones + the stupid ones + the brainwashed ones (big overlap in that venn diagram) who are the most front and center with the "stay strong" and "fight the good fight" message.

The lower teir players stand to lose the most. They are the most likely to have the shorter careers so each game lost is relatively more of their total NHL earnings. The difference in real dollars between the league and PA position is also less for them.

It is the relatively wealthy ones + the stupid ones + the brainwashed ones (big overlap in that venn diagram) who are the most front and center with the "stay strong" and "fight the good fight" message.
- Aetherial

You couldn't possibly know that any of that is the truth. And it's all assumptions on your part. Clouded by your bias towards the players. So the player who makes the League minimum stands to lose more then the star player who makes 8M a year is, if the Season is lost?

So more imaginary statements and fantasy?

As if the players are going to wake up and suddenly realize they're going to lose money due to the lockout. Like I said, why didn't they just settle before October then? If they were going to fold when they start losing money?
- MJL

Well now I can't choose between so many answers.

I could simply say 2004.

I could hearken back to the days when the players volunteered to give back 24% and then settled for a cap anyway.

I could bring up a pretty typical quote from a PA member in 2004.

Unfortunately... none of those things has worked for me in the past so I'll go with...

"Yes, imaginary statements and fantasy are the only weapons with which my 5-digit-salary-making self can combat the blazing truth of the righteousness of the PA position."

You couldn't possibly know that any of that is the truth. And it's all assumptions on your part. Clouded by your bias towards the players. So the player who makes the League minimum stands to lose more then the star player who makes 8M a year is, if the Season is lost?
- MJL

Point A was a math arguement.

Point B was easily based on who has been the most vocal and "present".

Well now I can't choose between so many answers.

I could simply say 2004.

I could hearken back to the days when the players volunteered to give back 24% and then settled for a cap anyway.

I could bring up a pretty typical quote from a PA member in 2004.

Unfortunately... none of those things has worked for me in the past so I'll go with...

"Yes, imaginary statements and fantasy are the only weapons with which my 5-digit-salary-making self can combat the blazing truth of the righteousness of the PA position."

- Aetherial

You could offer all of that. And it would come up woefully short of providing any proof whatsoever of your premise. You keep insinuating that the players aren't united. Without offering anything concrete to support that premise.

That's simply untrue. The NHLPA is looking out for every player. If they were just looking out for the star players who are making 6,7,8-10 million a year, they would just take the 7% cut and be done with it. And we'd be playing Hockey now.

What is your definition of the NHL winning?
- MJL

You continued inability to look beyond the players POV is as bad as the rhetoric shoved down our throats by both the NHL and NHLPA.

Given the vast majority of contracts are over within a 2 year time-frame, the NHL's "Make Whole" provision could cover most of those contracts if the NHLPA pushed hard on that part of the proposal. And furthermore, if the revenue growth is expected to be in line with the NHLPA's expectations (or even NHL's more conservative expectations), the long-term deals beyond 2 years out will be covered.

As soon as games are lost, players lose simply because of the salaries lost... every 2 weeks is something like 13% of their current year's contract down the tubes. So if the majority of contracts outstanding are for 2 years, then after 1 month, those players are likely to lose more than if they just took the NHL's proposal for salary cuts.

Now, the NHL have been wieners about this since the start, and will continue to be wieners - perhaps even worse moving forward - knowing that players will calculate the losses soon enough and realize they would have been better off negotiating off last week's NHL proposal.

The NHL will win against the players, because they will get the deal they want in the end. Does that mean the NHL wins overall - no, perhaps damage to the league in revenues from fan and sponsor support declines.

I really don't care who wins and who gets what cut of the money, both sides are equally stupid and culpable for the current situations, but simple mathematics will make the players losers.

The meter is low due to the fact this site was crashing all day.
- sloppyseconds2

I thought it was trade deadline day and spent half an hour looking for the ticker in TSN

Point A was a math arguement.

Point B was easily based on who has been the most vocal and "present".
- Aetherial

Point A was a weak argument. Normally the top players and veterans are in the front in situations like this. It's called leadership.

I really don't care who wins and who gets what cut of the money, both sides are equally stupid and culpable for the current situations, but simple mathematics will make the players losers.
- JDJ

You are the wind beneath my wings.

(That paragraph may in fact be the best summary yet of this mess.)

Point A was a weak argument. Normally the top players and veterans are in the front in situations like this. It's called leadership.
- MJL

I am humbled.

No, really.

You continued inability to look beyond the players POV is as bad as the rhetoric shoved down our throats by both the NHL and NHLPA.

Given the vast majority of contracts are over within a 2 year time-frame, the NHL's "Make Whole" provision could cover most of those contracts if the NHLPA pushed hard on that part of the proposal. And furthermore, if the revenue growth is expected to be in line with the NHLPA's expectations (or even NHL's more conservative expectations), the long-term deals beyond 2 years out will be covered.

As soon as games are lost, players lose simply because of the salaries lost... every 2 weeks is something like 13% of their current year's contract down the tubes. So if the majority of contracts outstanding are for 2 years, then after 1 month, those players are likely to lose more than if they just took the NHL's proposal for salary cuts.

Now, the NHL have been wieners about this since the start, and will continue to be wieners - perhaps even worse moving forward - knowing that players will calculate the losses soon enough and realize they would have been better off negotiating off last week's NHL proposal.

The NHL will win against the players, because they will get the deal they want in the end. Does that mean the NHL wins overall - no, perhaps damage to the league in revenues from fan and sponsor support declines.

I really don't care who wins and who gets what cut of the money, both sides are equally stupid and culpable for the current situations, but simple mathematics will make the players losers.
- JDJ

I would have to see some facts that says that the majority of contracts are over in a 2 year time frame. Again, what is your definition of losing in this situation?
My stance on this subject is not from the players POV. It is my POV based on what's happening. I'll be glad to discuss any part of the statements I've offered. As far as the "make whole" provision. That's what Fehr is concerned about Future players paying players now. There's a lot of people who feel they know more about this then Donald Fehr does. They would be wrong.

I thought it was trade deadline day and spent half an hour looking for the ticker in TSN
- Aetherial

Does your amp go to 11?

I would have to see some facts that says that the majority of contracts are over in a 2 year time frame. Again, what is your definition of losing in this situation?
My stance on this subject is not from the players POV. It is my POV based on what's happening. I'll be glad to discuss any part of the statements I've offered. As far as the "make whole" provision. That's what Fehr is concerned about Future players paying players now. There's a lot of people who feel they know more about this then Donald Fehr does. They would be wrong.
- MJL

You know, you are actually correct here.

They also have motivations completely different from just raw numbers. Unfortunately, this may lead them down a path one day where they lose more than they would have by signing the most recent NHL offer, as-is... and THAT is not speculation.

Either the owners cave or they cave, or they compromise or that day will come.

Does your amp go to 11?
- sloppyseconds2

Well it's one louder, isn't it?

does anybody think the players are partly not accepting this deal because they are being competitive? um maybe not.

wow the AHL is pretty fun to watch

Well it's one louder, isn't it?
- Aetherial

Was quite the concept, imagine how many people wanted a Marshall that went to 11 after that. Wonder if they made any?